Panthers board member Greg Alexander and leading lawyer Lee Hagipantelis have described it as “unusual” that Nathan Cleary wasn’t cross-examined by the NRL at the judiciary on Monday night. Cleary is free to play for the Panthers in Round 1 after having a two-game suspension downgraded to an $1800 fine.
With coach and father Ivan as his legal representative, Cleary successfully proved he made initial contact with Heamasi Makasini’s shoulder (rather than head), meaning it could only be a Grade 1 rather than Grade 2 charge. In a surprise move, the NRL’s counsel chose not to cross-examine Cleary after the evidence was presented, and the panel only deliberated for 12 minutes before downgrading his charge.
Nathan Cleary wasn’t cross-examined by the NRL at the judiciary. Image: AAP
Speaking on SEN radio on Tuesday morning, Alexander questioned whether it was “unusual” for the NRL not to cross-examine a defendant at a judiciary hearing. And Hagipantelis confirmed that it is.
The former Wests Tigers CEO and Principal of Brydens Lawyers said: “When a witness gives evidence in proceedings, the opposing counsel will get up and cross-examine them. If they choose not to cross-examine, the tribunal can assume that the evidence of the witness is not in issue.
“So if the witness says ‘this is what occurred’ and they are not cross-examined on those matters, the tribunal will assume those matters are not in issue and they will be accepted as fact.”
NRL likely accepted Nathan Cleary’s evidence as fact
In this instance, Cleary’s evidence – presented by three still images – was that his initial contact was shoulder to shoulder with Makasini. Cleary said his decision to rush up on Makasani was done with his own preservation in mind, saying: “If I stand back and he gets momentum I risk becoming a speed bump.”
Nathan Cleary leaves the judiciary hearing after having his suspension overturned.
(AAPIMAGE)
The NRL counsel had earlier claimed Cleary had increased the risk in his tackle by approaching Makasini at speed, rather than waiting back in the defensive line. Ivan Cleary agreed that Nathan looked to create force but had shown a duty of care by planting his feet before the collision, and a cross-examination didn’t occur afterwards.
“The parties decide the issues in dispute and if [the NRL] decide not to cross-examine a point, then it is clearly open for the tribunal to find that issue is not in dispute between the parties,” Hagipantelis added.